the galah

i'm not sure,but think if they are related he may be her uncle. gamma mentioned n delany.He had a reasonable record when diving 3 or 4 years ago But these days he reminds me of the mother in law.She drives with her foot hard on the acclerator punctuated by lots of strong braking. Just like the car the mother in law drives,any horse delaney drives won't get many miles to the gallon. as to the c hackett drive. that drive of hers yeaterday reminded me of the mother in laws driving when she had a stiff neck and didn't bother looking to see whats inside her when changing lanes. Only difference was becker had no horn to toot to tell her he was going to crash if she kept coming.

well the stewards reports for the north island are always predictable. as i predicted,todays report completely ignored the main factors in firstly,why becker lost its driver, then was knocked to the ground later in the race.. lets just analyse the stipes report and what it ommited. 1)it says becker broke shortly after the start and shifted in.It ommits to say, i'm all in,had shited in albeit not a major inward movement,but still enough for the horse i'm all in's,hind leg to contact the sulky wheel of becker.It was that contact that lead to im all in galloping,as what horse wouldn't when its leg action has been significantly impeded by a sulky wheel. You can actually stop the video and it shows that. If you don't believe you can see that on the video then ask yourself why does the stipes report note that im all in was treated for a laceration to the leg that i say made contact with the sulky. Its obvious where and when the contact was made,yet the stipes ignore that. 2)the stipes gave advice to j dunn for the manner in which he drove. What the heck did they do that for. Was he not just trying to avoid the runner with no driver. 3)Why did they not question n delany for the manner in which he drove. What on earth was delany doing,becuase there is no doubt whatsover that he contributed to becker falling. 4)why did they not question c ahckett,because it was very obvious that she also contributed significantly to becker falling by forcing the horses inside her onto becker and making him fall. 5)the stipes report noted becker jumped track markers near the 900m. Well duh,why was he jumping track markers.it was obvious.it was because the drivers outside him deliberately drove in a manner that forced becker to jump the markers now i've got better things i could be doing than pointing out just how incomplete(being diplomatic with that word) that stipes report was. i've said it before and this latest example again illustrates what i say about the north island stipes. they often overlook what some drivers do and because of their failure to give proper guidance and oversight to the juniors in the north isalnd,the standards of driving is poor when compared with the south island who have proper oversight. drivers,whether they be inexperienced or not,should still have an obligation to think of safety,not only for the drivers,but also the horsesThat did not happen today and the stipes in charge turned a blind eye. the only driver who considered safety and i believe showed common sense was j dunn,yet he was the only driver they spoke to about the manner he drove.

thought i would have a look at the form for tomorrows oamaru races. when i click on the horses, it says the service unavailable. so i thought instead i would have a look at the videos of a couple of races i didn't bother to watch today from hawera. again the service is unavailable. oh well,i'm told last nights 90 day fiance ,happily ever after,which i recorded was a doozy.so i will watch that instead. probably save money by doing that anyway.

i watched the race many times before posting. the reins were out the back and don't see the reins being a factor in why becker fell.. i think its prety clear becker got cut off by delany wanting to do so about 100m before falling,not sure what on earth delany was thinking. then c hackett doing the same just prior to becker falling,without any apparent thought of what was happening inside her. things like that shouldn't happen,but they do up there. i have said a few times,i think its an indication of lack of oversight by those in control and maybe inexperience and sometimes like today,just lack of common sense. the stewards could have called it off,but really who could have anticipated the driving of those involved in becker falling.

race 5 at hawera today. You had to feel sorry for the horse becker. shortly after the start it appears the horse(i'm all in-k coppins), drawn to its outside is allowed to drift in slightly and its back leg makes contact with beckers sulky,causing i'm all in to gallop,then that horse runs in when in a gallop and then this time its front leg makes significant contact with beckers sulky catipulting the driver of becker out of the sulky and giving her little option but to let go . so becker starts off running around after the 3 horses in front of it as another 3 behind it chase just behind it. but waits theres more. down the back straight the horse nearest to becker driven by j dunn jnr, wisely takes the option of giving the driverless becker a wide berth when close to becker,but then n delany on a following horse seemed to think its a good idea to pocket becker in close to the track markers.So delany improves to ahead of becker and starts running in on him. so as delany does that, you get this line of 4 horses,the widest being driven by c hackett who had galloped at the start. The c hackett seems to be unhappy about running wider due to the driverless horse, so she angles her horse in,dictating j dunns line who in turn has no option but to dictate n delanys line,as hes inside him. now, of course,you could see what was going to happen as this unfolded. whats going to happen to poor old becker,who's still inside n delany as delany was trying to,well i'm not sure to be honest. what does happen.Becker gets forced over the markers ,tries to avoid them but has nowhere to go as hackett and delany are both electing to cut him off,and becker frantically tries to stay on his feet, but eventually falls and makes slight contact with delany on the way down. personally i felt quite sorry for the horse as none of it was his fault. there were some very unusual driving tactics in that race ,thats for sure. my guess though is the stipes report will say,no driver was to blame,even though there was.

that raises the question,not how hard is it, like you ask,but whether it is appropraite to expect people to contact hrnz everytime they have an issue with the hrnz website. the question brodie asked is simple enough. Why didn't hrnz notify people through a brief statement on their website,why the ff odds normally shown, aren't currently appearing. i mean,isn't it common sense that it would be easier for them advise everyone through their website instead of promoting people individually call to enquire themselves. what about when the hrnz website stops working,which it does all the time,especially on racedays when people are trying to do the form to make an informed decision about who they may want to bet on. would you recommend people email or phone hrnz every time that happens, because hrnz would be inundated if applied the same advice in that case.

while i' while i'm at it ,i may as well point out another example of "do not believe what you read in hrnz press releases" this week they not only have the nelson/addington race failing to get any support,it was only a few weeks ago they were promoting the $100,000 young guns races at auckland and saying how all the reports they had received indicated there would be good numbers lining up in upcoming 2 year old races in january ,because of the stake money they were prioritisning for the 2 year olds. so what happened with the 2 year old races they referred to. young guns heat for 2yo colts and geldings at auckland-7 starters. young guns heat for 2yo fillies_cancelled due to lack of numbers addington 2 year old race-cancelled due to lack of numbers. so why would hrnz put out all the people they had been talking to had told them they had good numbers for those races. well,i think we can safely assume,that hrnz people,do what i always say they obviously do,they speak to a couple of stables,the ones with the money,and then they hrnz base everything they say and do around that. as i say,its like shooting fish in a barrel. Hrnz are just so out of touch with what works. I would say 80% of what they promote as being good ideas,are not. Have there ever been more out of touch wagering/marketing/programming people in the history of hrnz. i've no personal axe to grind against whoever they are.I just struggle with understanding how dumb they come across.

that should read 6 starters for that race.

so hrnz came up with yet another bright idea that in reality was just dumb.. Hrnz thought they would get extra numbers racing at nelson to qualify for a $35,000 race at addington. A race in which the extras they were hoping for,would have to race against much higher graded horses. Only hrnz could possibly think that would work.. so they end up with just starters in the $35,000 final on friday at addington. pointing out how out of touch wuith reality hrnz and their clever people are is like shooting fish in a barrel.

the government passed legislation that created the legal process for the tab to enter into the agreement with entain. . The nz government never put any money in when the entain deal occured. the nz government provided a support package/bail out for the nz tab/racing industry board around 2020 to the tune of around $70m because the tab had been so poorly run.It was around covid time,but nothing to do with covid.That was a one off to keep the racing industry here afloat. nz government do not fund nz racing anually. never have. once harness have spent their share of the entain money,they have to rely on wagering to cover their stakes. as 've i mentioned previously,fortunately thats not just wagering on nz harness,if it was things would look very dire,but it still appears hrnz are happily spending,without understanding of exactly how much income they will be funded by entain. Entain don't even know,they're also guessing until they have had a year of the geo blocking. as to victoria. victorian harness overspent. So the victorian government came to an agreement where they said,we'll wipe your debt to us,but we're taking your asset worth over 100m, the spare land they around melton. tabcorp has a longer term guaranteed funding agreement with wictorian harness. Nz only has 2 more years guaranteed funding. i've worked for a giovernment department and understand what gamma was saying. They get funded x amount of money each year,then when they get near the end of that finacial year the departments look at what they were allocated and if they haven't spent it all theygo on a bit of a spending spree as that way they can say to the govt,this is waht we spent last year so you need to fund us at least the same this year.Thats totally irrelevant to nz racing as its not governmant funded

of course i'm referring to nz.

maybe this post illustrates why you don't understabnd what we are saying. because what you've just posted has no relevance as far as i understand things,because racing does not get any annual allocation of funds from the governent, that they have to spend within a certain time frame. Never has..

is that graph for all 3 racing codes combined? It would be interesting to see the individual graphs for each code.

if we thought hrnz could afford to sustain the level of stakes funding ,then you would only have discussion about where that funding is best directed. in other words we can debate whether hrnz directing funding to x or y is approprate,but at least its going to people within the industry,either way. however,most don't belive hrnz can sustain the level of stakes and are significantly overspending,therefore that will result in both the x and y sectors of the industry being impacted for the worse. gamma,when you comment on who should get funding,your commenting on the first part and of course that ultimately comes down to opinions and the difference in opinions is fair enough,but you never seem to place much focus on the second part of what 've said. the second part will always be the most significvant for everyone long term. because funding priorities can change if you have the money to fund them,but funding priorities won't exist if the funds are no longer there and things will revert back to bare minimum and survival mode.If that happens then there will be a far greater outcry against everyone involved in thecurrent decision making.

i bag hrnz's current financial management team. i was once in a co-op and it used to be well run.Then people in charge changed,others retired and things started going off the rails.So i spoke up at meetings and pointed out some obvious truths about finacial matters. e.g. i wanted them to put systems in place to ensure every $ was accounted for,in particular around honesty.. management said,what are you on about . I said,why can't you do the maths at meetings . in the end i got tired of it,,so just made sure the office credited my account with every last $ i was due. .Well ,guess what,turned out i was right and the company eventually admitted $100,000 of shareholders money went into the ether.i was the only one not effected .That is differetn to anything hrnz is doing,no dishonesty at hrnz i assume,,but the same in that sometimes things are pretty obvious. But people always choose to see only what benefits themselves short term and ignore the self harm they are doing by refusing to listen to common sense voices. What i learnt was,well all you can do is put your opinion forward ,but it doesn't change that people always prioritise self interest. its just the way the world works. harness racings no different. everyone is just trying to do whats best for themselves. But hrnz leadership should be there to do whats best for everyone,not whats best for their mates and the people or clubs who have the influence.

i don't mind a bit of sarcasm. . only thing is,you have said many times that you belive the first pararaph. you are consistent.Always,focusing on the desparate plight of harness racings rich and famous,worried about where they may get their next meal from if the north island stakes were to be cut, or hrnz was to say,no more 5 horse fields. You've got me feeling sorry for them as well. I will put in a kind word if is see them at the foodbank next week and will drop and email to brad steele and voice my support for more 3 horse fields and 50,000 series,whatever they call them. theres my bit of sarcasm. i'll be honest like you gamma. i don't give a second thought to just how tough it could be for harness racings rich and famous. Why. Because they are rich and famous. i care far more about the battlers and the small timers who have also spent their lifetimes dedicated to the same industry and haven't the wealth or had success to any great level,but kept plugging away because of their love for the sport and the horse. yeah,great stuff ATC. eroding their asset base by half a million a month for the last couple of years is something to really applaud. Well done ATC. Oh and well done cambridge.they know how to dig themselves into a huge financial hole as well. Well done to them. And well done hrnz. You know how to pick the best run clubs to throw the industries financial resources at. Come in atc and cambridge.

yes its alright. Its just not practical to ban betting here on aussie dogs. i wonder,will the nz greyhound trainers still be able to train up their dogs and sell them to australia in the future as potential racers/ i don't know why the states that still have greyhound racing just don't follow the recommendations of the nsw commission that came out last year. its the scale of greyhound racing that is both their strength and their weakness. the solutions didn't seem too hard to implement,its just people liked it the way it is and turn a blind eye to the dark side of the way it is. Then you get commission of inquiries and bans citing all the old issues and for some reason the industry claims to be blindsided. i've always thought thats strange.

when i watched dave fahey interviewed after his last nz cup win,he said it all really would mean nothing as the sport was going to disappear this year. it sort of reminds me how harness breeders have had their broodmare families for years yet no one wants to breed from them anymore due to the declining interest in harness racing.thats also very sad. fahey seemed quite upset,as i think hes entitled to be.I watched that and thought,how did the greyhound people not see it coming and why were they blaming winston peters when it was the greyhound industry which had evolved into something which had a dark side to it. the demise of the industry was always a given. I used to infer that when posting on the greyhound part of this webisite . greyhound racing had evolved to rewarding large scale mass production type farms and there were kennels who simply took advantage of that. The injury thing was significant,but thats not what tipped the industry over.. the signs were there when the cole kennel had their live baiting thing ,where they had so many employees not willing to tell the ruth and they attacked those that did. The mcinerney issues. have you ever read how many really bad incidents involved that kennel on the jca website.. It was all down to the scale of how they operated.how could anyone not see that was what contributed to the industries demise.These were the industries flagbearers,yet they were the industries own worst publicists. have people ever read the anaylisis of data the former nsw chief vet did when investigating injuries. He specifically identified a major spike in injuries when dogs were backed up within 2 or 3 days.. Yet,that had been the practice of the likes of the mcinerny kennel for years. That kennel must have known,but it was all about the money. As i said on the greyhound forum,people should read what that nsw vet said in his submission to the latest nsw commission. The latest nsw commssion findings highlighted many issues the greyhounds had over there and they all still applied to nz. i only have been to the greyhounds once in the last 3 years. I referred to it in a post at the time. Not 1 spectator ,no racebook and only 2 people in the bar under next to the bridcage at addington. 1 of those the photo man who trundled out every race to take a photo.Off in the distance the handlers would come out,then they would race in the distance. that off in the distance,detachment somehow summed up the industry to me at the time. It had no personal connection with anyone except themselves. I remember going to forbury about 10 years ago and going over near where the dogs came onto the track only to be told by a trainer words to the effect,piss off,this is the greyhounds area. I only was going to have a look at them come out onto the track. It struck me,that fella reflected the same type of attitude you would read about in the jca reports when the likes of the schofields or the coles were fueding with people. Or when you read the way they argued with each oither on socail media forums like the other channel.Their was this sense of hostility. it was all such a far cry from all the trips i would make to que2 to watch the dogs. those were the days. also,just last month the nsw government advised wentworth park was not getting their lease renewed and would be demolished and that the government would instead invest 10m supporting racing at their other tracks.they plan to build up to 4800 houses and 20 sports fields on that ground. thats being viewed as a major blow to the industryin nsw,although the current govenment has no plans close the sport down. So greyhound racing seem safe for quite a few years there.

it was a great movie. i see no reason whatsover to think betting on australian greyhound racing will stop here.That makes no financial sense.

it will shrink considerably in the north island. thats due to hrnz ,atc and cambridge not having any forward thinking and everyone up there just putting self interest over the overall industries interest. canterbury and southland are doing the same,just not to the same level. .In other words,let those currently involved who are mostly older, lead out their lives for the next few years confortatbly and give nothing more than lip service when expressing concern about those around in 10-15 years time. hey i get thats just a human thing,but there will come a time when people will look back and say,yeah,we should have done things differently. the industry is shrinking significantly in canterbury and southland. It already has and is continuing to. People just have to open their eyes and its obvious. The rate of its decline is quite amazing when you compare things to what they were,even as little as 20 years ago.

the courage reactor race that you mention wilson house came from the back to win. They only ran their last 400 in 30.1,because the horse in front was driven beyond its abilities so was always going to stop. short distance racing does provide a significant advantage to horses drawn in and who can race on the speed.Moreso than those run over 2400. more punters prefer long distance racing,but as you say,what the ounters want is not the priority.Hrnz have prioritised is getting horses to have more starts so as to keep field sizes up,.but the irony is hrnz is doing that while doing the opposite in the areas i mentioned earlier. at the end of the day,i think while the distance of races is of importance,its just another symptom of a declining industry which has many other issues it is not addressing which will impact it far more.

you can't compare gallops to harness. ask any punter and they will tell you they think the gallopers are always trying and the trots are often just there to follow them around. and everyone knows thats true anyway. Thats the way the harness rating systems work,especially over there.run them down the track with some quiet follow them around runs . Its not like people don't know that. personally i think addington 1980 races should be limited to 10 runners,not 14.

that wanting an optimum field size is just talk. you have to judge them by their actions,not the talk that comes out of hrnz. its very obvious that hrnz have strongly been pushing policies which have directly lead to so many small fileds. The 2 year old racing,the high class racing,the over saturation of racing at cambridge and auckland

then again the opposite also applies. if people say greyhound racing should continue here,then they should also be supporting greyhound racing and gambling on it, continuing in australia,not suggesting our government should ban betting on it. i'm sure the people who supported banning it here are consistent and want betting on it banned here and in australia as well.

i think gammalites correct. The focus has shifted to short distances because they have less horse numbers, so they want them to run more often. so sprint racing is a symptom of a declining sport. its seen as a soluition but in reality that solution is also part of the problem. the irony is,sprint racing is part of the reason why the sport is declining, as we all know that what you get from horses running more often and over short distances,is those who draw poorly or lack gate speed simply go back and just follow them around and wait for next week.That then leads to a lack of punter confidence in the product and results in declining interest from the punter. for me,i still like to watch harness racing,but the gallops is a far superior betting product because you always get the impression everyone is there to win. You can't say that these days about a lot of the harness racing in places like auckland and cambridge. thats why those blokes from out the gate on thursdays,started off betting at the cambridge trots but lost interest and much preferred the betting on the nz greyhounds.Anyone who went in their syndicate would have got the same impression as they did,stay away from the trots.